Joke or counterfeit? Balancing trademark parody and consumer safety in the edibles market

IF 1.3 3区 社会学 Q3 BUSINESS
Hannah R. Weiser, Daniel R. Cahoy
{"title":"Joke or counterfeit? Balancing trademark parody and consumer safety in the edibles market","authors":"Hannah R. Weiser,&nbsp;Daniel R. Cahoy","doi":"10.1111/ablj.12254","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Children mistakenly eating tetrahydrocannabinol-laced gummies thinking they are Halloween candy. Adults overdosing on seemly innocent and fun-looking “edibles.” These all-too-common occurrences are a serious problem in the growing market for cannabis-related products. A significant part of the risk stems from the broad acceptance and expectation of parody marketing in the field, which has contributed to these dangerous misunderstandings. Importantly, recent changes to trademark law have limited the commercial use of parodies as marks, strengthening the hand of brand owners to police harmful impersonation while preserving legitimate speech. As a result of the more restrictive environment, trademark law and consumer safety rules are increasingly congruent and a greater array of stakeholders with significant financial resources now possess the power and incentive to reduce the danger. This article uses the above cannabis marketing conflict as a framing tool for exploring the limits of trademark parody in an important yet under-examined context: when safety concerns clash and arguably supersede speech. The existing literature has typically considered parody in innocuous and often noncommercial applications. Such limited review underappreciates instances when trademark confusion or dilution through parody lead to serious health consequences, particularly for vulnerable audiences such as children. Additionally, to the extent that the literature does address cannabis and trademarks, it has generally focused on cannabis branding issues as opposed to infringing the rights of others. This article bridges the gaps. Moreover, it integrates a consideration of the impact of recent Supreme Court cases, <i>Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC</i> and <i>Vidal v. Elster</i>, that reflect a tighter circumscription on speech protections for unauthorized use. It concludes with the observation that not all parodies are equal in terms of balancing speech and safety. And with evolving trademark law, there is increasingly an incentive for various stakeholders to collaborate to enhance consumer safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":54186,"journal":{"name":"American Business Law Journal","volume":"62 1","pages":"5-21"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Business Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ablj.12254","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Children mistakenly eating tetrahydrocannabinol-laced gummies thinking they are Halloween candy. Adults overdosing on seemly innocent and fun-looking “edibles.” These all-too-common occurrences are a serious problem in the growing market for cannabis-related products. A significant part of the risk stems from the broad acceptance and expectation of parody marketing in the field, which has contributed to these dangerous misunderstandings. Importantly, recent changes to trademark law have limited the commercial use of parodies as marks, strengthening the hand of brand owners to police harmful impersonation while preserving legitimate speech. As a result of the more restrictive environment, trademark law and consumer safety rules are increasingly congruent and a greater array of stakeholders with significant financial resources now possess the power and incentive to reduce the danger. This article uses the above cannabis marketing conflict as a framing tool for exploring the limits of trademark parody in an important yet under-examined context: when safety concerns clash and arguably supersede speech. The existing literature has typically considered parody in innocuous and often noncommercial applications. Such limited review underappreciates instances when trademark confusion or dilution through parody lead to serious health consequences, particularly for vulnerable audiences such as children. Additionally, to the extent that the literature does address cannabis and trademarks, it has generally focused on cannabis branding issues as opposed to infringing the rights of others. This article bridges the gaps. Moreover, it integrates a consideration of the impact of recent Supreme Court cases, Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC and Vidal v. Elster, that reflect a tighter circumscription on speech protections for unauthorized use. It concludes with the observation that not all parodies are equal in terms of balancing speech and safety. And with evolving trademark law, there is increasingly an incentive for various stakeholders to collaborate to enhance consumer safety.

玩笑还是赝品?食品市场中商标恶搞与消费者安全的平衡
孩子们误以为四氢大麻酚软糖是万圣节糖果。成年人过量食用看似无害和有趣的“可食用食品”。在不断增长的大麻相关产品市场上,这些司空见惯的现象是一个严重的问题。很大一部分风险源于该领域对戏仿营销的广泛接受和期望,这导致了这些危险的误解。重要的是,最近对商标法的修改限制了模仿作为商标的商业用途,加强了品牌所有者在保护合法言论的同时监管有害模仿的能力。由于环境更加严格,商标法和消费者安全规则越来越一致,拥有大量财政资源的更多利益相关者现在拥有减少危险的权力和动力。本文将上述大麻营销冲突作为框架工具,用于探索商标恶搞的限制,在一个重要但尚未得到充分审查的背景下:当安全问题发生冲突时,可以说取代了言论。现有文献通常认为戏仿是无害的,通常是非商业应用。这种有限的审查低估了通过模仿造成商标混淆或淡化导致严重健康后果的情况,特别是对儿童等弱势受众。此外,就文献确实涉及大麻和商标的程度而言,它通常侧重于大麻品牌问题,而不是侵犯他人的权利。本文填补了这一空白。此外,它综合考虑了最近最高法院案件的影响,杰克丹尼尔的财产公司诉VIP产品有限责任公司和维达尔诉埃尔斯特,这反映了对未经授权使用的言论保护的更严格限制。文章的结论是,在平衡言论和安全方面,并非所有的模仿都是平等的。随着商标法的不断发展,各利益相关方越来越有动力合作加强消费者安全。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
16.70%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: The ABLJ is a faculty-edited, double blind peer reviewed journal, continuously published since 1963. Our mission is to publish only top quality law review articles that make a scholarly contribution to all areas of law that impact business theory and practice. We search for those articles that articulate a novel research question and make a meaningful contribution directly relevant to scholars and practitioners of business law. The blind peer review process means legal scholars well-versed in the relevant specialty area have determined selected articles are original, thorough, important, and timely. Faculty editors assure the authors’ contribution to scholarship is evident. We aim to elevate legal scholarship and inform responsible business decisions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信